Epoxy IDIQ Section M 1 May 2023.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD EPOXY CONTRACT SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 30 March 2022. These regulations are available electronically from the contracting office POC. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. A Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.1 whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L – Instruction to Offers [ITO] of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded – The Government intends to select one contractor for the Epoxy Flooring contract. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract the Government is not liable for costs in connection with any response to this RFP. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions.

1.3. In addition to the IDIQ contract award, the Government intends to issue a single task order for the "Sample Task Order" to the awardee of the basic contract. The Awardable Sample Task Order proposed price will be contractually binding and may be awarded at the sole discretion of the Government.

1.4. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by Offeror(s). The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions, however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that doing so would be in its best interest.

1.5. Correction Potential of Proposals - The Government will consider, through the evaluation, the “correction potential” of an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirement, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, if one is established, or contract award.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

2.1. The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and sub-factors below

· Volume I – Price of Seed Project and Basic Contract

· Volume II – Technical Acceptability (Acceptable/Unacceptable) -Sub-Factor One – Manufacturer’s Certification/Licenses

- Sub-Factor Two – Seed Project Methodology (On Site Employees and

Control Plan

· Sub-Factor Four – Bonding Capability

· Volume III – Past Performance (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

· Volume IV – Contract Documentation

2.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY –

2.2.1. A price evaluation will be performed on all proposals in accordance with Section 3.1 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). If a TEP for an Offeror cannot be calculated due to the omission or error of the Offeror, the Government may set aside the Offeror’s proposal and proceed to other Offeror’s proposals.

2.2.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with that of the lowest priced Offeror. A minimum of three lowest priced offers will be evaluated, unless fewer than three offers are received. Evaluations will cease when three technically acceptable proposals receive an acceptable past performance rating.

2.2.3. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-price factors.

2.2.3.1. If a sufficient number of Offeror(s) as determined by the Government are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.2.3.1.1. Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions. The contracting officer may determine the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

2.2.4. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability. It is also possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance.

2.2.5. Technical and past performance evaluation of an Offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

3. VOLUME I – PRICE

3.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Reasonableness; (2) Balanced and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

3.2. Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using analysis of the provided information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 maybe required to support the proposed price.

3.3. Balanced Pricing - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more price elements are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the offers. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be a sum of the following:

3.4.1. The sum of the Notional Amount Application to Offeror’s proposed quantities, as contained in the Notional Amount Application tab (Cell F67) in the Section J “Schedule B 5.5 yrs” Excel Spreadsheet. The notional quantities will be determined by the Government before offers are evaluated and will be equally applied to all Offerors. The notional quantities will not be disclosed to Offerors. The notional quantities used will be for evaluation purposes only, only the rates proposed by the Offeror receiving award will be contractually binding.

3.4.2. The sum of the Seed Project total proposed price as contained in the Seed Project spreadsheet Section J “Seed Task Order Pricing Sheet – Bldg 265” Excel Spreadsheet (Cell F64). Please note that this price will be contractually binding and may be awarded at the Government’s sole discretion.

4. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY –

4.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The proposals shall demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to the Statement of Work (SOW) sections required in Section L – Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal shall convey to the Government that the Offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to the Offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the Offeror. The Offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2. Technical Acceptability - The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.”

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

4.3. SUB-FACTOR ONE – MANUFACTURER’S CERTIFICATIONS/LICENSES

4.3.1. Warranty Certification – Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included manufacturer’s certification qualifying the Offeror to receive a minimum 1 year product and installation warranty for all floor repair and coating projects, to include but not limited to:

(a) Standard Resinous Floor,

(b) High Performance,

(c) High Build,

(d) 3-Coat Fuel Resistive,

(e) 5-Coat Fuel Resistive,

(f) Chemical Resistive, and

(g) Gymnasium Floor Coatings.

4.3.2. Master Electrician License – Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included documentation of current license for a Master Electrician or described the ability to sub-contract electrical work to a licensed Master Electrician.

4.4. SUB-FACTOR TWO – SEED PROJECT (BASIC IDIQ AND SEED PROJECT SOW)

4.4.1. Project Schedule – Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes a schedule for the Seed Project as outlined in the Seed SOW paragraph 3.b identifying all major phases of construction including mobilization, submittals, material approvals, and a realistic timeline.

4.4.2. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes a written narrative that demonstrates the Offeror understands and is capable of completing each major aspect of construction included in the Seed SOW including, but not limited to; on-site staff, submittals, mobilization, 1 year warranty, flooring removal (if applicable), rebuilding flooring surface, flooring techniques, materials to be used for flooring, new flooring installation, clean-up, and demobilization of all equipment. Written narrative shall be compliant with all applicable Base Facility Design Standards, Unified Facilities Criteria design, and specifications guidance.

4.4.3. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes a list of all proposed materials for construction for the Seed Project IAW the Seed SOW, all attached UFGS, and includes the manufacturer’s cut-sheets, warranty of materials (if applicable), and any proposed deviations to existing materials on site.

4.5. SUB-FACTOR THREE – BASIC CONTRACT SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN AND BASIC QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (BASIC SOW SECTION A-08)

4.5.1. Minimum criteria is met when the Offeror has provided a Basic Contract Safety and Health Plan IAW Basic SOW paragraph 3.3.1, Basic SOW Appendix C, and that is complaint with the Government Safety Requirements Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) 01 35 26.

4.5.2. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and/or Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates are equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 238330

4.5.3. Minimum criteria is met when Offeror’s Quality Control Plan meets the requirements outlined in the Basic SOW 3.0 and UFGS 01 45 00.00 10, and has addressed at a minimum the following:

1) Adequate general flooring quality control

2) Adequate applicable flooring construction performance

3) Identify all personnel, procedures, instructions, tests, forms, and records to be used

4) Clearly identify the Quality Control Officer

5) Identify the authority and responsibilities of all quality control personnel

6) Identify procedures for reviewing and approving all shop drawings, product data samples or other submittals before submission to the Contracting Officer

7) Identify procedures for obtaining field measurements

8) Identify method of documenting quality control operation, inspection, and testing of both prime and subcontract work including samples of proposed forms

9) Identify method of documenting and tracking deficiencies including responsibilities and procedures for correcting deficiencies

4.5.4. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal demonstrated the Offeror has an understanding and is compliant with asbestos and lead based paint (LBP) abatement listed in the Attachment 06 - General Requirements Appendices Section 4.5.

4.6. SUB-FACTOR FOUR – BONDING CAPABILITY

4.6.1 Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes a prequalification letter from a surety with an A.M. Best rating of ―”A”, stating the offeror would be bonded for a minimum aggregate amount of at least 20% of their proposed price for the IDIQ contract. The letter also identifies a single project bond amount for the Seed Project.

5. VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE –

5.1. Past performance information will be gathered from Offeror submissions, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered to assess how well Offeror performed on past contracts.

5.2. Recency is defined as performance less than three years old from the issue date of the RFP. The Government will not consider performance on contracts or task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

5.3. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of flooring services described in this RFP.

5.4. Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” / “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings:

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of “Acceptable” / “Unacceptable”, unknown past performance shall be considered “Acceptable”.

6. VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

6.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness; and proposal included a signed copy of the Model Contract Standard Form (SF) 1442, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by Section L, paragraph 7 “Contract Documentation”. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or award.

6.2. The proposal included documentation of adequate financial resources such as a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

6.3. The proposal contained evidence that the Offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting IAW FAR 52.219-14.

7. DISCUSSIONS

7.1. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

8. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

8.1. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements as detailed in the SOW, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.